guard health affairs hospitals in ksa resonance imaging
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1/29
A Study of the Quality of Work Life Among MagneticResonance Imaging Technologists in NationalGuard Health Affairs Hospitals in KSAGhadah Almugren ( [email protected] )
National Guard Health Affairs https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7947-6102Haya Zedan
Saudi Electronic University
Research
Keywords: Quality of Work Life, Work Life Balance, Well-Being, Satisfaction, Stress, Healthcare, MagneticResonance Imaging Technologists, NGHA, KSA
Posted Date: August 5th, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-50756/v1
License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License
Page 2/29
AbstractQuality of Work Life (QWL) is a multi-dimensional discipline concerned with the quality of life at theworkplace.
Objectives: This work aimed to assess the level of QWL of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists(MRITs) at National Guard Health Affairs Hospitals (NGHA) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and identifythe correlation between QWL dimensions and Job and Career Satisfaction (JCS).
Methodology: This study used the 32-item WRQoL-2 tool, a questionnaire consisting of 6 subscales; Joband Career Satisfaction (JCS), Control at Work (CAW), Home-Work Interface (HWI), General Well-Being(GWB), Stress at Work (SAW) and Work Conditions (WCS).
Results: The study respondents were 57 MRITs working in NGHA hospitals across KSA with a 100%response rate. We found a high level of QWL among MRITs (66.2%, 3.31/5). The level of JCS was high(71.6%, 3.59/5) with a signi�cant correlation between JCS and WCS, CAW, HWI, and GWB. There was aninverse relationship between SAW and JCS.
Conclusion: Further research in the �eld of QWL is needed to diagnose shortcomings affecting the qualityof healthcare services in KSA.
BackgroundQuality of work-life is de�ned as "The desires of a staff with regard to working conditions, remuneration,and professional development, work-family role balance, safety and social interactions in the workplaceand social relativity of work". QWL refers to the staff’s satisfaction with working life; it is a subjectivephenomenon in�uenced by personal feelings and perceptions1,2. QWL is an interdisciplinary subject withroots in psychology, sociology and healthcare management. QWL is a combination of strategies andprocedures associated with the workplace, that aim to support the staff's status by enhancing the workconditions. QWL has evolved since the 1960s. Initially, the concept was based on human perspectives ofwork aiming to create homogeneity between staff and their work environment. The idiom "Quality of WorkLife" (QWL) was �rst introduced by Louis Davis in 19721. Most recently, Easton and Van Lar3 developedthe WRQoL-2 method to assess Quality of Work Life that involved 6 subscales: Job and CareerSatisfaction (JCS), Control at Work (CAW), Homework Interface (HWI), General Well-Being (GWB), Stressat Work (SAW) and Work Conditions (WCS).
General Wellbeing:
QWL is a broad concept that considers staff wellbeing and views their experiences of work and the workenvironment as essential to their success and the achievement of the organization's objectives.Behavioral scientists agree on eight essential categories for QWL: 1) safe and secure working conditions2) adequate pay and compensation 3) developing staff skills 4) continued growth 5) social integration
Page 3/29
with the work organization 6) work and total living space 7) constitutionalism in the work organization 8)social relevance to work-life1. QWL is a construct that has been much analyzed and con�rmed to increasestaff professional growth, productivity, and achievement4. QWL has numerous dimensions; work-lifebalance, work environment, participative management, job satisfaction, reward and recognition, propergrievances handling, welfare facilities, and organizational commitment5.
Job and Career Satisfaction:
When studying QWL, we must differentiate between career satisfaction and job satisfaction. Jobsatisfaction is a subjective condition; happiness that arises from the responsibility; independence andstrength of the work experience. Job satisfaction relates to achievement and maintenance of suchsuccess, whereas job dissatisfaction is a signi�cant cause for large team turnover and defection6. Thereis an interconnection between job satisfaction and absenteeism, turnover rate, conscientiousness, andstaff commitment7. A model of job satisfaction that contains four elements: job performance, companyperformance, role perceptions, and job-related factors 8. There are four variables that may affect theperception of staff of quality of work-life: meaningfulness, pessimism regarding a change in theorganization, job satisfaction, and self- con�dence9. These four qualities of work-life variables werepositively associated with staff perception of job satisfaction.
Career satisfaction is de�ned as the well-being of staff in the physical and external dimensions of thework, incorporating career progression and opportunities for the staff10. Staff that are able to maintain asatisfying life by reducing pressure and con�ict and providing a social connection between staff and thework environment report a high level of QWL in this area.
Control at Work and Home-Work Interface
The conceptual framework of QWL can be viewed through four dimensions: work environment, workcontext, work life-home, and lifework design4. The work environment can be de�ned as the impact ofsocietal changes on professional practice. The work context incorporates the setting of practicing workand the effect of the work environment on staff. The work-life/ home life dimension is the integration andcompromise between home life and work life. The life-work design deals with the composition of thework and identi�es the actual work being done. For instance, the availability of supplies, work tasks,security, education, sta�ng ratios, and individual success are parts of the quality of the work-lifeequation11.
Work Conditions and Stress
Ensuring excellent work conditions and reducing stress is critical to improving productivity and jobsatisfaction, and reducing turnover, robust quality of work life is a necessity to attract new staff andencourage them to remain committed. Enhancing the quality of work-life may bene�t team performance;reduce absenteeism, burnout, and lower staff turnover rates. It is also used to enhance work conditions to
Page 4/29
enable staff to become more active and vital within the organization. Therefore, procedures and policiesthat create the experience12, 7, 9 of work should include more satisfying tasks for staff. Policies andprocedures could consist of elements to promote independence, belongingness or loyalty, skilldevelopment, provide external rewards; and giving credit for achieved work. Human resources recruitmentand sta�ng may be positively impacted by the staff's QWL. It is a means to provide attention to theneeds and demands of staff with a view towards their needs at the job and their lives outside of work13.Quality of work-life can be utilized to bolster the strength of staff, reduce stress, enable them to meetperformance requirements and improve experiences at work13. QWL is positively in�uenced bysupportive visionary leadership, in setting effective management of resources and in raising collaborationlevels between staff 14.
QWL for Healthcare Personnel
The factors pertaining to the broader healthcare environment affect healthcare service quality, so it is inthe interests of healthcare administrators to provide the best quality work environment to their staff inorder to achieve the organizations vision, mission and goals successfully14. There is a recent interest inhealthcare organizations all over the world in regards of raising QWL levels to bolster the organizationalperformance and to result in satis�ed patients12. A high level of QWL is essential for healthcareorganizations to attract and retain talented and quali�ed healthcare personnel. High levels of QWL ensurestaff are more committed, engaged, satis�ed and willing to offer their best efforts. QWL is essential tohealthcare organizations who manage highly technical professionals, because the high performance isthe core of the success of the organizations and the impacts the satisfaction and wellbeing of patients15.Many healthcare organizations are investigating issues of retention and recruitment via accomplishing ahigh quality of work-life aesthetic16. Another primary dimension is the quality of attention given to thepatient, which relates signi�cantly to the quality of work-life situation for technologists and otherhealthcare personnel. Job satisfaction has been linked to raising the quality of service at healthcareorganizations. In the health-care setting, QWL is linked to leadership, work policies, and other aspects;each of which has a contemplative impact on how staff see their place in their organizations. QWL aimsto promote and sustain the satisfaction of staff to increase productivity and to accomplish anorganization's objectives13. There is a growing body of research evaluating the QWL for healthcareprofessionals; nevertheless, no studies have dealt with QWL for MRITs in KSA. Our search on Medline,CINAHL, Web of Science and PubMed yielded no results in this regard. Therefore, we chose to reviewpublished literature focused on nurses for the similarities in the work environment of nurses and MRITs,such as work conditions, pressure, and working hours. Powerful QWL can in�uence the commitment andcontribution of the staff in healthcare organizations.
Quality of Nursing Work Life (QNWL)
A number of studies addressed QWL in the medical sector. One aimed to identify the relationship betweenQWL and turnover intention in nurses working in healthcare centers in KSA16. The study used Brooks’
Page 5/29
scale for Quality of Nursing Work Life (QNWL) as a tool; surveying 508 nurses in the Jizan region andfound dissatisfaction among the respondents regarding their QWL; 203 nurses expressed an intent toleave their jobs – a potential turnover rate of 40%. The average score on the Brooks' scale forrespondents was (139.45/252), a low QWL score. The same scale (QNWL) was used to evaluate QWLand nursing turnover intention for 364 nurses working in King Fahad Medical City (KFMC) and KingFaisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center (KFSH&RC)17. The results revealed a dissatisfaction inQWL among the nursing staff of both hospitals with a percentage of 54.7% and the turnover intentionrate was very high 94%. Both studies reveal QWL dissatisfaction among nursing staff in KSA and highturnover intention rates. Another study aimed to measure the correlation between QWL and workengagement in KSA. The sample consisted of 207 nurses working in hospitals in the Eastern region ofKSA and found a correlation between the three dimensions of job engagement: absorption, dedicationand vigor18 (see Figure 1).
Aims:
This study is concerned with the quality of work life for MRITs and how it affects the work environment inthe healthcare organization. Identifying the level of QWL helps in determining whether the currentcircumstances are ideal for MRITs or if there are potential improvements that could be made inconditions where MRITs work.
MRITs
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technicians (MRITs) are quali�ed healthcare staff managing radiologyimaging equipment, which doctors require to diagnose and treat patients. We have used a similarmethodology as previously used to study QWL in nursing staff. MRITs and nurses work equivalentworking hours, have similar work conditions and deal with similar challenges and pressures in variousaspects of their work responsibilities, with an intense workload, the necessity of interaction with differentspecializations and facing delays throughout practice, as well as performing non-work-related dutiessuch as supporting family. Other challenges they face center around career progression, training, �nancialbene�ts, and �exible scheduling, all issues potentially impacting their quality of work-life.
Objectives:
The current study assessed the quality of work-life and identi�ed the degree and correlation with JCSamong MRITs working in NGHA with a view to enhance the QWL and consequently raise the quality ofhealthcare services provided to patients, increasing patients' satisfaction and promoting the medicalfacilities in KSA.
Research Questions:
1. What is the level of QWL for MRITs?
2. What is the degree of JCS for MRITs?
Page 6/29
3. Is there a correlation Between QWL and JCS for MRITs?
Methods And MethodologyStudy Setting:
NGHA is a division of the Ministry of the National Guard, one of the largest medical organizations in theKingdom of Saudi Arabia, distinguishable by its ubiquitous existence in across the Kingdom and theirhigh-quality imaging departments, in six hospitals situated in the cities of Riyadh, Dammam, Jeddah, Al-Ahsa, and Al-Madinah Al-Munawarah.
Study Design
The study used a cross-sectional design conducted between September and December 2019. The studyused the WRQoL-2 as the data collection method3. This scale has been used in different studies in themedical context to measure QWL for various professions working in healthcare.
An electronic questionnaire was derived from the WRQoL-2 with permission and sent to studyrespondents through the (WhatsApp) mobile application. The study sample consists of all the MRITs,male or female, Saudi or non-Saudi, and staff on the job training under the Saudi Career DevelopmentProgram (SCDP) in all six hospital locations in NGHA network.
Data Collection Methods and Study Tool
WRQoL-2 Scale
WRQoL is a scale that was developed initially to collect data related to QWL in medical environments20.The scale consisted of 24 items distributed to 6 subscales, then was raised to 32 items in 2018 to providebetter psychometric properties3. The 6 subscales of WRQoL-2 are Job and Career Satisfaction (JCS),Control at Work (CAW), Home-Work Interface (HWI), General Well-Being (GWB), Stress at Work (SAW),Work Conditions (WCS). The 32 items are distributed to the six subscales as follows: items no.(1.3.8.11.18.20) to JCS, items no. (2,12,23,30) to CAW, items no. (5,6,14,25) to HWI, items no.(4,9,10,15,17,21,27,28) to GWB, items no. (7,19,24,29) to SAW and items (13, 16, 22, 26, 31) to WCS.Respondents used a �ve-point Likert scale (5= strongly disagree, 1= strongly agree).
Validity and Reliability of the Study Tool:
We conducted statistical tests to establish the distribution of the sample, it was found to be normal. Wealso conducted validity and reliability testing. The whole scale items and correlations with their subscaleswere signi�cant at (p<0.01), denoting that all questionnaire items have internal consistency and inter-items consistency (see Table 1).
Page 7/29
To check the reliability of the study tool, the Cronbach α coe�cient of 0.9 was calculated for the WRQoL-2six subscales (see Table 2). We concluded here that the study tool is reliable to measure the QWL atMRITs.
Statistical Analysis:
1. Frequencies and percentages were calculated to describe study sample demographics.
2. Mean was calculated to �nd high and low responses of the study respondents on each subscale.
3. Standard deviation was used to identify extent of deviation of responses for each subscale.
4. Pearson correlation coe�cient was used to measure validity of the study tool.
5. Alpha-Cronbach coe�cient was used to measure reliability of the study tool.
�. One-Sample T-test was used to determine whether the average score of some items is higher or lowerthan the average approval score, which is 3.
Ethical Considerations
IRB approval was sought from King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC) in NGHA.The study was conducted in full accordance with the protocol and current revision of the Declaration ofHelsinki for Good Clinical Practice. Participation was obtained voluntarily through an approved consentform. The investigator assured privacy and con�dentiality of respondents, including personalinformation. No data was used for any purpose other than what was stated. The current research waspresented for approval with study number (SP19/462/R). Respondents were permitted to exit the studywithout any adverse effect. The researcher-maintained con�dentiality and anonymity of data as no otherparties were provided access to information.
ResultsThe sample size was (n=57) with a 100% response rate. MRI is a highly specialized �eld and therefore thenumber of respondents, related to the specialty and working within the study setting, is considerablysmall.
1- Gender:
Of the respondents to the study 53.6 %, n=30 were male and 47.4%, n=27 were female (see Table 3) (seeFigure 2).
2- Age:
84% of the study sample were in the age group 25-44 years (n=48), followed by the age group 45-59years, n=6, 11% and only three respondents were under age 25 years 5% (see Figure 3).
Page 8/29
3- Years of Experience:
Of the respondents n=26 have 1-5 years of experience 45.6%, representing the largest group, followed byrespondents who have 6-10 years of experience, n=14, 24%, followed by 11-20 years of experience, n=11,19%. Only 2 respondents had more than 20 years of experience, 3.5% (see Figure 4).
4- Hours of work:
70.2%, n=40 respondents work on a full-time basis with paid overtime, which denotes a shortage in theMRITs in NGHA hospitals. Seventeen respondents work full time with no overtime 29.8% (see Figure 5).
5- Disability Status:
56 respondents did not have any disabilities 98%, one respondent had a disability 1.8% (see Table 4).
6- Location of Work:
38 respondents work in NGHA of Riyadh, 67%, representing the highest proportion, followed by 11%, n=6in Jeddah and Madinah each, n=4 respondents in Dammam, 7% and n=3 respondents in Al-Ahsa 4% (seeFigure 6).
7- Dependents:
21 respondents did not have responsibilities for dependents 36.8%, n=13 respondents haveresponsibilities towards school-age children 22.8%, and n=8 respondents have babies and young children14%. Four respondents 7% have elderly relatives or friend’s dependent on them (see Figure 7).
Frequencies and percentages for all sociodemographic data were calculated (See Table 5).
The Level of QWL for MRITs
Mean and standard deviation were calculated for the study responses. The One-Sample T-test was usedto identify the degree of QWL for each subscale and identify the overall degree of QWL for MRITs (seeTable 6).
The study sample of MRIT’s was found to have a high level of QWL. The overall mean for studyresponses was (3.31/5.00); four subscales were statistically signi�cant at the level of (p<0.01). The studyresponses were higher than the average approval level of (3), which con�rms that QWL for MRITs washigh (see Table 6) (see Figure 8).
The highest scores among the six dimensions of WRQoL-2 were found for WCS, followed by GWB, SAWand lastly HWI. All four dimensions were high for MRITs, as the mean for them ranged between 3.28-3.60.The evaluation rate was between 65.6% to 70.2%. All were statistically signi�cant at (p <0.05).
The Level of JCS for MRITs
Page 9/29
The One-Sample T-test was conducted for statements 1, 3, 8, 11, 18, 20 as corresponding to JCS on theWRQoL-2 Scale. The mean for the responses was (3.59/5), indicating a high level of JCS for the studysample. This was signi�cantly correlated at (p <0.01). (see Table 7).
Correlation Between QWL and JCS for MRITs
Using Pearson’s Correlation Coe�cient, we found a positive correlation between JCS and the othersubscales of WRQoL-2 (GWB, HWI, CAW, WCS and SAW) (see Table 8). There was a statisticallysigni�cant correlation between JCS and all subscales at the (p <0.01) level. This means that when workconditions, well-being, control at work, etc. improve, there is an increase in job and career satisfaction.There was an inverse correlation between SAW and JCS as the signi�cance level was a negative value at(p <0.01) level (see Table 8). When "Stress at Work" increases, JCS decreases.
QWL and Gender: There were no statistically signi�cant differences at the level of signi�cance (p<0.05)for the subscales HWI, CAW, WCS and SAW. The overall score of WRQoL-2 was not statically signi�cantfor gender. We found statistically signi�cant differences for the subscales JCS, GWB according to gendervariable (p<0.01); in favor of male gender (see Table 9).
QWL and Age: Using the ANOVA test, we found a statistically signi�cant difference between the overalllevel of WRQoL-2 and Age. The HWI, CAW and WCS subscales were statistically signi�cant by age groupat (p <0.01). The JCS, GWB and SAW subscales did not return any signi�cance (see Table 10).
To identify differences between age groups for the HWI, CAW, WCS subscales, Scheffe’s post hoc test wasconducted (see Table 11). There was a signi�cant difference among the study respondents in regard toHWI, CAW, WCS in the 45-59 years group. This indicates a correlation between QWL and older age.
DiscussionWe assessed the level of QWL and identi�ed the JCS and differences for gender and age in the sixsubscales of the WRQoL-2 for MRITs at NGHA hospitals.
WRQoL-2 has been used by studies conducted in China, Taiwan, Turkey, Iran, Uganda, and the UK. Thesestudies were conducted to identify problems and factors that affect QWL, to be able to put forwardremedies and solutions to enhance the working conditions, the working environment, the job-lifeinterference, as places whose staff have high levels of QWL contribute more to productivity andexcellence at the workplace.
In comparison to the �ndings of these international studies, our study shows that job and careersatisfaction in MRITs at NGHA hospitals is highest (3.59), followed by the study on nurses in Taiwan(3.75)23, followed by the study on nurses in Uganda (3.53)24. In relation to CAW, three studies scored(3.39), and the current study came second, scoring (3.15/5). This indicates a similarity between all the
Page 10/29
studies that used WRQoL-2 tool for the CAW dimension. In our study the HWI dimension score was(3.28/5), whereas it was (3.52) in Zhao et al.25, Edwards et al.26 and (2/5) in Mazloumi et al.27. For theGWB dimension, the current study scored (3.51), which is the highest among the nine studies (see Table12). This is an indicator that the well-being of medical staff in KSA is considerably higher than healthcarepersonnel in other developing countries. The overall results of the current study show that the MRITsworking in NGHA hospitals have a high degree of JCS; the study respondents are satis�ed with their jobs.
The current study differed slightly from a previous study on nursing staff in Al-Madinah region hospitalsin KSA28. This could be because the study on Al-Madinah region hospitals focused on a single region,whereas the current study was conducted across KSA. The mean for the work-life-home dimension in thestudy on Al-Madinah region was (3.37) whereas in the current study the mean HWI is (3.28).
In our study, female respondents scored low levels of General Well-Being (3.31/5), comparable withresults of other studies that found low levels of General Well-Being for females (3.23/5)29 and the overallWRQoL scores were similar for females in both studies (3.19) in the current study, and (3.22)29. Thisrea�rms our assumption that the work environment of MRITs is similar to that of surgical residents, andthat they face similar issues with their QWL.
Respondents of the male gender were found to have higher mean scores than females in terms of jobsatisfaction and in total WRQoL contradicting a previous study that found moderate QWL amongnurses30. The SAW dimension was found to be unrelated to gender, as male and female respondents hadproportionate stress at work.
In our study, we found that age and gender were signi�cantly correlated with QWL. Respondents in theage group (45-59) had higher levels of WRQoL in the HWI dimension. This is similar to �ndings ofprevious studies; that older age had a positive effect on QNWL, work context and the work environment17,
28. This may be due to the ability of older and more senior staff with years of work experience to adapttheir home and work lives and create a balance and feel satis�ed with their roles, their ability to overcomehardships, achieve job promotions and ask for better pay.
The results from our study contradict a study from 2012, which found QWL dissatisfaction16, which mayalso be related to the study being conducted in a single region in the south of the Kingdom, where there isa shortage of medical workforce resulting in increased workplace stress.
There were studies that measured QWL among other professions in the Kingdom, such as a studyconducted on Yanbu industrial city staff, found that respondents had a high level of job satisfaction. Itidenti�ed factors that affect the level of job satisfaction, such as wages and remuneration, workgroupfactors, and decision-making factors31.
Summary And Conclusions
Page 11/29
The current study is the �rst study that is conducted on MRITs in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We aimed todetermine the level of QWL and degree of job and career satisfaction for MRITs working in NGHA. Thestudy showed a high level of QWL and signi�cant correlations between QWL and speci�c subscales.Older age and years of work experience contributed signi�cantly to higher QWL scores. These �ndings aresimilar to previous research �ndings on nursing staff and can potentially be adapted to evaluate QWL forother types of healthcare professionals or medical technicians in KSA. Identifying shortcomings will helphealthcare administrators bridge the gaps in this �eld and �nd means to build and sustain the QWL forhealthcare professionals for the potential enhancements to quality of healthcare and patient satisfaction.
DeclarationsThe authors of this study declare that they have obtained the required ethical approvals for this body ofwork, including consent for publication. The study data and materials are available through the journalsdata repository. The authors declare they have no competing interests in this work. There was no fundingrequired or obtained for this work. The �rst author conceived of the study, sought the ethical approvalsfrom the hospital, developed the data collection instrument with permissions, collected and analyzed thedata and wrote the manuscript. The second author supervised the conduct of the work, reviewed allcomponents of the project, edited and advised on conceptualization, data collection and analysis, and co-edited the manuscript for submission. The authors acknowledge the support of the National GuardHealth Affairs in enabling the research project.
References1. Kanten S, Sadullah O. An empirical research on relationship quality of work life and work
engagement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012 Oct 24; 62:360-6.
2. Lee YW, Dai YT, Park CG, McCreary LL. Predicting quality of work life on nurses’ intention to leave.Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2013 Jun;45(2):160-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12017
3. Easton S, Van Laar D. User manual for the Work-Related Quality of Life (WRQoL) Scale: a measure ofquality of working life. University of Portsmouth; 2018.Available from:https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/user-manual-for-the-workrelated-quality-of-life-wrqol-scale(38db9f62-d8c3-4f80-8559-5b74de164383)/export.html
4. Brooks BA, Anderson MA. Nursing work life in acute care. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. 2004 Jul1;19(3):269-75. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001786-200407000-00014
5. Yadav R, Khanna A. Literature review on quality of work life and their dimensions. IOSR Journal ofHumanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS). 2014;19(9):71-80.
�. Aziri B. JOB SATISFACTION: A LITERATURE REVIEW. Management Research & Practice. 2011 Dec1;3(4).
Page 12/29
7. Kasraie Sh, Parsa Sh, Hassani M, Ghasem-Zadeh A. The relationship between quality of work life, jobstress, job satisfaction and citizenship behavior in oshnaviyeh hospital’s staff. Journal of PatientSafety & Quality Improvement. 2014;2(2):77-81.
�. Christen M, Iyer G, Soberman D. Job satisfaction, job performance, and effort: A reexamination usingagency theory. Journal of marketing. 2006 Jan;70(1):137-50.
9. Chitra, D. and Mahalakshmi, V. A Study on Stress Management among the Employees of Banks.International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research. 2015; Vol. 44 (1), pp.95-101.
10. Joo BK, Lee I. Workplace happiness: Work engagement, career satisfaction, and subjective well-being. InEvidence-based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship 2017 Aug 7. EmeraldPublishing Limited.
11. Lu J, Kong J, Song J, Li L, Wang H. The health‐related quality of life of nursing workers: A cross‐sectional study in medical institutions. International journal of nursing practice. 2019 Aug;25(4):e12754.
12. Mosadeghrad AM, Ferlie E, Rosenberg D. A study of relationship between job stress, quality ofworking life and turnover intention among hospital employees. Health Services ManagementResearch. 2011 Nov;24(4):170-81. https://doi.org/10.1258/hsmr.2011.011009
13. Thomas, R. Contemporary Sociology, 1984;13(4), 490-491. Retrieved July 5, 2020, fromjstor.org/stable/2069107
14. Mosadeghrad AM. Factors affecting medical service quality. Iranian journal of public health. 2014Feb;43(2):210. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2014.65
15. Azeem SM, Akhtar N. The in�uence of work life balance and job satisfaction on organizationalcommitment of healthcare employees. International Journal of Human Resource Studies. 2014 Apr1;4(2): 18.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v4i2.5667
1�. Almalki MJ, FitzGerald G, Clark M. The relationship between quality of work life and turnoverintention of primary health care nurses in Saudi Arabia. BMC health services research. 2012Dec;12(1):1-1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-314
17. Kaddourah B, Abu-Shaheen AK, Al-Tannir M. Quality of nursing work life and turnover intentionamong nurses of tertiary care hospitals in Riyadh: a cross-sectional survey. BMC nursing. 2018 Dec1;17(1):43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-018-0312-0
1�. Alsadah ZO. Exploring the Relationship between the Quality of Nurses' Work Life and Nurses' WorkEngagement in Hospitals in the Eastern Provence of Saudi Arabia.https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/14741zua3
19. O'Brien-Pallas L, Baumann A. Quality of nursing worklife issues--a unifying framework. Canadianjournal of nursing administration. 1992;5(2):12.
20. Van Laar D, Edwards JA, Easton S. The Work‐Related Quality of Life scale for healthcare workers.Journal of advanced nursing. 2007 Nov;60(3):325-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04409.x
Page 13/29
21. Easton S, Van Laar D, Marlow-Vardy R. Quality of working life and the police. Management.2013;3(3):135-41.
22. Kahyaoglu Sut, H., & Mestogullari, E. Effect of premenstrual syndrome on work-related quality of lifein Turkish nurses. Safety and health at work. 2016 Mar 1;7(1):78-82.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2015.09.001
23. Dai HD, Tang FI, Chen IJ, Yu S. Taiwanese version of the work-related quality of life scale for nurses:translation and validation. Journal of Nursing Research. 2016 Mar 1;24(1):58-67.https://doi.org/10.1097/jnr.0000000000000142
24. Opollo JG, Gray J, Spies LA. Work‐related quality of life of U gandan healthcare workers.International nursing review. 2014 Mar;61(1):116-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12077
25. Zhao X, Sun T, Cao Q, Li C, Duan X, Fan L, Liu Y. The impact of quality of work life on jobembeddedness and affective commitment and their co‐effect on turnover intention of nurses.Journal of clinical nursing. 2013 Mar;22(5-6):780-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04198.x
2�. Edwards JA, Van Laar D, Easton S, Kinman G. The work‐related quality of life scale for highereducation employees. Quality in higher education. 2009 Nov 1;15(3):207-19.
27. Mazloumi A, Kazemi Z, Nasl-Saraji G, Barideh S. Quality of working life assessment among traindrivers in keshesh section of Iran Railway. International Journal of Occupational Hygiene.2014;6(2):50-5. Retrieved from https://ijoh.tums.ac.ir/index.php/ijoh/article/view/97
2�. Alharbi MF, Alahmadi BA, Alali M, Alsaedi S. Quality of nursing work life among hospital nurses inSaudi Arabia: A cross‐sectional study. Journal of Nursing Management. 2019 Nov;27(8):1722-30.
29. Zubair MH, Hussain LR, Williams KN, Grannan KJ. Work-related quality of life of US general surgeryresidents: is it really so bad? Journal of surgical education. 2017 Nov 1;74(6): e138-46.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.09.018
30. Sadat Z, Aboutalebi MS, Alavi NM. Quality of work life and its related factors: A survey of nurses.Trauma Monthly. 2017;22(3).
31. Alzalabani AH. A study on perception of quality of work life and job satisfaction: evidence fromSaudi Arabia. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review. 2017;7(2):1-9.
TablesTable 1 The Internal Consistency for the Whole Scale Items
Page 14/29
Items Consistency withWRQoL Scale
Consistency with Subscale
GWB
4. I feel well at the moment 0.644** 0.736**
9. Recently, I have been feeling unhappy and depressed 0.542** 0.710**
10. I am satis�ed with my life 0.545** 0.775**
15. In most ways, my life is close to ideal 0.602** 0.652**
17. Generally, things work out well for me 0.568** 0.660**
21. Recently, I have been feeling reasonably happy all thingsconsidered
0.675** 0.826**
27. am proud to tell others that I am part of this organisation 0.670** 0.823**
28. I would recommend this organisation as a good one towork for
0.630** 0.819**
HWI
5. My employer provides adequate facilities and �exibilityfor me to �t work in around my family life
0.822** 0.829**
6. My current working hours/patterns suit my personalcircumstances
0.573** 0.794**
14. My line manager actively promotes �exiblehours/patterns
0.769** 0.834**
25. I am able to achieve a healthy balance between my workand home
0.769** 0.834**
CAW
2- I feel able to voice opinions and in�uence changes in myarea of work
0.589** 0.785**
12. I am involved in decisions that affect me in my own areaof work
0.660** 0.832**
23. I am involved in decisions that directly affect membersof the public
0.399** 0.773**
30. I have su�cient opportunities to question managersabout change
0.341** 0.783**
WCS
13. My employer provides me with what I need to do my jobeffectively
0.733** 0.833**
Page 15/29
Items Consistency withWRQoL Scale
Consistency with Subscale
16. I work in a safe environment 0.723** 0.851**
22. The working conditions are satisfactory 0.737** 0.832**
26- The organisation communicates well with its employees 0.735** 0.831**
31. I am happy with the physical environment where Iusually work
0.732** 0.835**
SAW
7. I often feel under pressure at work* 0.595** 0.924**
19. I often feel excessive levels of stress at work* 0.520** 0.914**
24. I have unachievable deadlines 0.520** 0.914**
29. I am pressured to work long hours 0.582** 0.915**
** signi�cant at 0.01 * reversed items
Table 2 Reliability of the Study Tool
Scale/ Subscale Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Total Reliability Score for WRQoL Scale 0.900 22
JCS 0.778 6
GWB 0.755 5
HWI 0.745 3
CAW 0.745 3
WCS 0.711 3
SAW 0.815 2
Table 3 Distribution of the Study Respondents According to " Gender Variable."
Page 16/29
Gender Frequency Percent
Male 30 53.6
Female 27 47.4
Total 57 100.0
Table 4 Distribution of Study Respondents According to "Disability Variable."
Having Disability Frequency Percent
Yes 1 1.8
No 56 98.2
Total 57 100.0
Table 5 Frequencies and Percentages for Sociodemographic Data
Page 17/29
Frequency Percent
Gender
Male 30 43.6
Female 27 47.4
Total 57 100.0
Age
Under 25 3 5.3
25 to 44 48 84.2
45 to 59 6 10.5
Total 57 100.0
Experience
Less than 1 4 7.0
1 to 5 26 45.6
6 to 10 14 24.6
11 to 20 11 19.3
More than 20 2 3.5
Total 57 100.0
Hours of Work
Full time 40 70.2
Full time and paid overtime 17 29.8
Total 57 100.0
Having a Disability
Yes 1 1.8
No 56 98.2
Total 57 100.0
Location of Work
Riyadh 38 66.7
Jeddah 6 10.5
Al Ahsa 3 5.3
Page 18/29
Frequency Percent
Dammam 4 7.0
Al Madinah 6 10.5
Total 57 100.0
Dependency
Babies / young children (under school age) 8 14.0
Babies / young children (under school age), School-age children 2 3.5
Babies / young children (under school age), School-age children, Disabledrelatives, Elderly relative
4 7.0
Elderly relatives / friends 1 1.8
No 21 36.8
Other 4 7.0
School-age children 13 22.8
School-age children, Elderly relatives/friends 2 3.5
School-age children, Other 2 3.5
Babies / young children (under school age) 8 14.0
Total 57 100.0
Table 6 QWL for Each Subscale
Page 19/29
One-Sample Statistics Test value = 3 Sig. (2-tailed)
Rate Evaluation Ordinal
Subscale n mean Std.Deviation
t
WCS 57 3.60 0.71475 6.301 0.000** 71.9 High 1
GWB 57 3.51 0.60328 6.404 0.000** 70.2 High 2
SAW 57 3.42 0.92480 3.437 0.001** 68.4 High 3
HWI 57 3.28 0.92965 2.280 0.026* 65.6 High 4
CAW 57 3.15 0.79437 1.390 0.170
Not sig.
62.9 Moderate 5
TotalScore
57 3.31 0.58907 3.994 0.000 66.2 High
Test Value = 3 ** signi�cant at 0.01 * sig. at 0.05
Table 7 T-test for JCS Statements
Page 20/29
One-Sample Statistics (%) Rating Ordinal
Statement n mean Std.Deviation
t P value
1. I have a clear setof goals and aims toenable me to do myjob
57 4.12 0.908 9.339 0.00** 82.4 High 1
3. I have theopportunity to usemy abilities at work
57 4 0.707 10.677 0.00** 80 High 2
11. I am encouragedto develop new skills
57 3.51 1.104 3.48 0.001** 70.2 High 3
20. I am satis�edwith the training Ireceive in order toperform my presentjob
57 3.42 1.085 2.931 0.005** 68.4 High 4
18. I am satis�edwith the careeropportunitiesavailable for mehere
57 3.4 1.1 2.77 0.008** 68 High 5
8. When I have donea good job, it isacknowledged bymy line manager
57 3.04 1.017 0.26 0.795 60.8 Moderate 6
Overall value of Joband CareerSatisfaction
57 3.59 0.687 6.399 0.00** 71.6 High
**signi�cant at 0.01
Table 8 Correlation Between QWL and JCS
Subscales GWB HWI CAW WCS *SAW An overall score ofQWL
JSC PearsonCorrelation
.824** .646** .545** .614** -.339-** .802**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000
n 57 57 57 57 57 57
**signi�cant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Page 21/29
Table 9 WRQoL Subscales According to Gender Variable
Subscales Gender N mean Std. Deviation t df Sig. (2-tailed)
JCS Male 30 3.85 0.684 3.386 55 0.001**
Female 27 3.28 0.564
GWB Male 30 3.69 0.643 2.438 55 0.018**
Female 27 3.31 0.496
HWI Male 30 3.43 0.999 1.315 55 0.194
Female 27 3.11 0.832
CAW Male 30 3.14 0.900 -0.017 55 0.986
Female 27 3.15 0.675
WCS Male 30 3.68 0.814 0.904 55 0.370
Female 27 3.51 0.587
SAW Male 30 3.38 0.980 -0.322 55 0.749
Female 27 3.46 0.876
Overall WRQoL Score Male 30 3.42 0.641 1.474 55 0.146
Female 27 3.19 0.511
** Signi�cant at 0.01
Table 10 Signi�cant Difference of WRQoL-2 on Basis of Age Variable
Page 22/29
Subscale Dif. Source Sum ofSquares
df MeanSquare
F Sig.
JCS
BetweenGroups
2.401 2 1.200 2.702 0.076
Within Groups 23.995 54 0.444
Total 26.396 56 -
GWB BetweenGroups
2.057 2 1.029 3.031 0.057
Within Groups 18.324 54 0.339
Total 20.381 56 -
HWI BetweenGroups
7.141 2 3.570 4.673 0.013**
Within Groups 41.257 54 0.764
Total 48.398 56
CAW BetweenGroups
5.784 2 2.892 5.284 0.008**
Within Groups 29.553 54 0.547
Total 35.337 56 -
WCS BetweenGroups
5.608 2 2.804 6.584 0.003**
Within Groups 23.000 54 0.426
Total 28.608 56 -
SAW BetweenGroups
4.436 2 2.218 2.756 0.072
Within Groups 43.458 54 0.805
Total 47.895 56 -
Overall WRQoL-2Score
BetweenGroups
2.996 2 1.498 4.922 0.011**
Within Groups 16.436 54 0.304
Total 19.432 56 -
** Signi�cant at 0.01
Page 23/29
Table 11 Scheffe post ad hoc Test for three Subscales
Subscale Age n mean Under 25 25 to 44 45 to 59
HWI Under 25 3 2.78 -
25 to 44 48 3.19 -
45 to 59 6 4.28 * -
CAW Under 25 3 1.89 -
25 to 44 48 3.17 -
45 to 59 6 3.56 ** -
WCS Under 25 3 2.56 -
25 to 44 48 3.58 -
45 to 59 6 4.22 ** -
Overall WRQoL-2 Score Under 25 3 2.84 -
25 to 44 48 3.26 -
45 to 59 6 3.92 ** -
** Signi�cant at 0.01
Table 12 Comparison of WRQoL Scale Across Different Studies
Page 24/29
Study JCS CAW HWI GWB SAW WCS
Current Study (MRITs) in KSA 3.59 3.15 3.28 3.51 3.42 3.6
Zhao et al. (2013) (Nurses in China) 3.48 3.39 3.52 3.44 3.62 3.62
Edwards et al. (2019), (Higher Education Staff) 3.43 3.39 3.52 3.44 3.62 3.62
Easton et al. (2013), (Police in the UK)21 3.09 2.98 2.77 3.12 2.6 2.81
Mazloumi et al. (2014) (Train drivers in Iran) 3.21 3.04 2 3.62 4.29 1.37
Kahyaoglu Sut& Mestogullari (2016), (Nurses withoutPMS Turkey)22
3.3 3.4 3.1 3.3 2.8 2.9
Kahyaglu Sut & Mestogullari (2016), (Nurses withPMS Turkey)
3 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.4
Opollo et al. (2014), (Ugandan Nurses) 3.53 - 2.46 - - -
Dai et al. (2016) (Nurses in Taiwan) 3.57 3.39 3.42 3.25 3.46 3.33
Figures
Page 25/29
Figure 1
Factors In�uencing Quality of Nursing Work Life (O'Brien-Pallas & Baumann ,1992)19
Page 26/29
Figure 2
Distribution of Study Sample According to "Gender Variable."
Figure 3
Distribution of Study Respondents According to "Age Variable."
Page 27/29
Figure 4
Distribution of Study Respondents According to "Years-of-Experience Variable."
Figure 5
Distribution of Study Respondents According to "Work-Hours Variable."
Page 28/29
Figure 6
Distribution of Study Respondents According to "Location of Work Variable."
Figure 7
Distribution of Study Respondents According to "Dependents Variable."
Page 29/29
Figure 8
Values of WRQoL Subscales